Fozzie

I may be wrong but I thought they moved moved to the larger clinic around December 2018?

Agree with this

If you are not balding extensively and looking to just have frontal/hairline work, I'd say Dr Keser......although Dr Pekiner also seems to be building up a good reputation.

If I was in your shoes, wouldn't even consider surgery. Medication should be your first port of call.

I think the key thing to remember is the various recommended, preferred surgeon/clinic lists dotted around the internet should in no shape or form be taken as some kind of holy grail. Usually they are subjective or there is a vested interest somewhere. Take Spex's recent top 10 list. The surgeons listed in his list are what he feels are the top 10 surgeons in the world....perfectly fine. However half of the names mentioned (maybe more), wouldn't come close to be included in my own top 10 but again all subjective. These lists amount to little more than a directory of surgeons/clinics for me and that's how I personally treat them. The various forums, organisations etc out there are a great source of information but I don't treat them as an authority. The HT game (same for most of the cosmetic surgery industry) has pretty limited regulation and it's a murky world out there. The onus is on the patient to arm themselves with the information/research required which in turn hopefully makes them feel completely comfortable when it comes to making that decision and even then sometimes things can go wrong. In the grand scheme of things, you have to ask yourself does it ultimately matter if ASMED are on the recommended/endorsed list here or not. What difference does it actually make? Not much imo. The list is basically just a pointer to the various surgeons out there. Most logical people will head straight to the patient reviews and if they are bad, it will put off people, if good they'll take a closer look. The fact this forum to my knowledge doesn't heavily moderate negative reviews on surgeons that are on the recommended list does prospective patients more of a favour than a list of some sort. I'd take a guess ASMED will be more worried about the negative reviews on here than being removed from the recommended list. Also have to remember, there are forums out there who are quick to remove posts which have a hint of criticism of one of there recommended surgeons and those are the ones which I feel are doing somewhat of a disservice to their members.

On this forum, think in the last year or so members such as redlord, heckenpenner, Gofi, Jammerz, cosmokramer, somelad55, JayLDD (maybe more but just ones that come to mind) have had procedures with ASMED and been happy with progress/outcomes as far as I can tell. The issue however isn't really that ASMED are not producing satisfactory results at all, it's related to the hit and miss nature of recent results because obviously there have been a number of people who have been unhappy with their end result and that is a problem.

Inclined to agree with this. No doubt there have been a number of patients here who have been justifiably unhappy with their results from ASMED. However at the same time, there have been a number here who have been happy to. So it really boils down to why results have been so hit and miss over the 1-2 years or so. People should know ASMED have a number of procedures on the day and use techs to carry out the majority of the procedure as part of their research before making a booking with them. If anyone is not happy with that setup, then you simply cross them off and turn to someone like a Dr Konior or similar. I've noted a number of prospective patients who have done exactly this and kudos to them as they seem to very clear in what they want from the beginning which is what every prospective patient should be. Going to ASMED when knowing how they operate and then taking issue with the way they setup afterwards is akin to closing the stable door after it has bolted unfortunately.

My own opinion is I think people are not doing enough of their own due diligence when looking for a surgeon. I find it genuinely staggering when I read of cases where patients have turned up to ASMED and only then realise they won't be the only patient on the day and that techs will be performing the majority of the procedure. Just points to a serious lack of research imo. One might go in assuming it''s a surgery so a Dr will be carrying it out but with adequate research, it's clear the lines are blurred in the HT industry, even more so when you go abroad. ASMED were producing more consistent results up until a few years back but in the last year or two there have been too many patients who have been justifiably unhappy. What I will say in defence of this site is that it gives patients the opportunity to voice their dissatisfaction. I may be wrong, but I don't see many negative comments being removed/heavily moderated unlike other forums. Now if a prospective patient comes here and see's the unhappy ASMED patients, that is much more valuable to that person than some recommended list. Personally, don't think anyone should be putting too much importance to the various lists out there, whether it's recommended surgeons on this site, the IAHRS, ISHRS or the various online 'HT consultants' pushing the surgeons they represent and seeing them as some kind of holy grail. They are just references and pointers imo and no one should be attaching too much weight to them. End of the day, prospective patients owe it to themselves to perform very thorough research. Overall this industry, like for a lot of other cosmetic procedures, is pretty poorly regulated even in a lot of western countries. These various lists we see are all pretty much subjective and/or there's a vested interest somewhere imo. Not like these surgeons/clinics have to go through an official body and reach particular benchmarks and regularly attested so imo treat them with a giant handful of salt. It's just plain naive to think otherwise imo. End of the day, the onus is on the patient to ensure they fully understand what they are getting into.

All looks pretty normal to be honest. The thinner parts in the donor area look to be recovering and I'd imagine will look fine in a few months. Recipient area looks OK to but ordinarily can't really gauge too much in the first 3 months in terms of growth. Know it's difficult but in the first 3 months I probably wouldn't over analyse things too much and just let nature takes its course.

Agree with this. To be honest, I personally no longer put too much weight on ISHRS/IAHRS membership. Yes can be a useful reference point but my own view is their own interests and agendas override everything else. Like jj51702 has suggested, first and foremost you have a duty to do your own due diligence and scrutinise prospective surgeons/clinics as thoroughly as possible.

If i'm not mistaken. I think kw877 is referring to wanting Dr Diep's opinion on his result, density etc and not wanting to waste Diep's time rather than speaking to Dr Erdogan. Also, how is your growth coming along?

Sounds a horrendous experience and sorry you had to go through it. Hope you are able to resolve the issues, especially relating to the infection(s) you've had to deal with. Always sad to hear when people suffer at the hands of these type of clinics and think it underlines just how important your own research is before you jump into a procedure. There are a lot of hair transplant clinics/surgeons all over the world but honestly, I think there's only a small percentage that are worth going to in my opinion. I know price can attract potential patients but it really is russian roulette with some of these places.

Would strongly urge to cast your eye further afield and look at clinics abroad to. Unfortunately the UK has a lot of poor/average hair transplant clinics/surgeons and there's only two I'd personally consider and they are Dr Reddy (The Private Clinic) and Dr Ball (The Maitland Clinic) but they are expensive. If I had to choose one out the two you've mentioned, it would be the Farjo clinic (would run a mile from The Hair Dr. Even the most well renowned/skilled surgeons with a lot of staff wouldn't attempt 4000 grafts in a day so not sure why some random clinic in Leeds are suggesting doing that amount) but personally if I couldn't afford Dr Reddy's or Dr Ball's prices, I'd look to head abroad. There are some great surgeons in Belgium which are only a Eurostar trip away and the prices shouldn't be too far off what you've been quoted.

In London, personally i'd only consider Dr Reddy. He will be much more expensive than the quote you have received (I think he performs procedures outside of London to which can bring the cost down a little from what I remember). In the UK you may also want to look at Dr Ball in Portsmouth, another good surgeon. The Clinic/Dr you have mention look a jack of all trades type of outfit and I'd avoid. £3000 for unlimited FUE grafts sounds ridiculous. Would strongly suggest not to let price or location limit you. Yes in the real world price is always going to be a factor for a lot of people but in that case worth saving up to go to a recognised surgeon or if that's not possible and you still want a procedure, I'd personally rather go to Dr Demirsoy or Dr Cinik in Turkey than the Dr you have mentioned.

Not a good result but got to be honest, for the area marked, I just don't see how 2376 grafts were ever enough. You've also had your temple points done and although they have not been enhanced that much, I'd still say maybe 300-400 grafts were used just there? Leaving say 1900-2000 for the top. Looking at your overhead picture (2nd picture), you have considerable frontal loss with deep recession in the temple area, so struggling to see how 1900-2000 was going to be enough. Looking at the post-op op pic, it looks like those 2000 or so grafts have been transplanted all over the frontal area going back towards the mid-scalp region, os a significant area. Furthermore, not entirely sure if there was any lowering of the hairline involved, but if there was, would mean the area being covered would be even greater. Yes, growth of what was transplanted does look to be poor but I'm also not convinced the number of grafts for the area that was covered was enough.

I agree, if there was only miniaturisation in the crown, it was better to hold of transplanting there and see what propecia can do for you. Generally, I'm not a fan of spot filling areas in the crown. If someone has been on finasteride for a while and there's still a bald/thinned out area, then fair enough. However, I believe that is a separate issue and doesn't have a bearing on the issue with density behind the hairline shown in the pictures. Regardless of the 1000 grafts used in the crown and 500 or so in the temple points, I'd guess you've still had 3000 grafts transplanted in the frontal area. That's still a fair number of grafts and suppose the question is with that number of grafts, should you be expecting better density in the weak areas? I'd say yes. Going by your 2 pre-op pics in your initial post, your main weak area looked like the band that runs from you temples and meets behind the fairlock. I'd say 3000-3500 grafts, with decent hair caliber, should be enough to give you a good result there. In some of your pictures, your hair does look good and overall there is a cosmetic improvement. However in certain pictures, the area behind the hairline does looks weak (right side looks weaker than the left?) and clear to see the concerns you have. At 8.5 months, your kinda closing in on the final result so not sure just how much improvement there is to come. Certainly expect some further maturation which may help things but not sure if there will be anything that'll make a drastic improvement in the weak areas imo.

Impressive transformation from where you started and still only at 7.5 months. With regards to the crown, think it's always going to be difficult to get it right after one procedure if you are balding extensively I don't know what it is with ASMED, they just seem to do better with these kind of high norwood cases (obviously not all cases). Could argue the bar is set lower with regards to the expectations of patients who are going in already having lost most of their hair and it won't take too much too please them but nonetheless, as a neutral, progress and results like these still look good. Almost as though they do their best work on more of a blank canvas. Why they haven't been able to translate this kind of result to patients requiring, on paper, simpler, smaller procedures recently is strange. I know the experience of the technicians has been called into question and definitely has it's merit's but I'm beginning to think there's more to it than just that. Can't help but feel there's a technical failing somewhere in the approach. Are they trying to over compensate in patients who still have a lot of hair (to try and get as close to their natural density as possible) with higher graft numbers but this is having the opposite effect and grafts ares simply not surviving? Maybe other surgeons/clinics are relying more on the artistic aspect/placement of grafts using lower numbers to get better results (believe in most cases it's only really Dr's performing most of of the procedure with years of experience who can pull this off) whereas ASMED are more about higher numbers but it's causing issues with graft survival, who knows. Cases like that patient on youtube who had 2000 grafts in the temples but had very poor progress at 9 months does make you think. 1000 grafts in each temple does sound too much on paper and just wonder if it resulted in the majority of grafts simply not surviving. Anyway, ASMED look to have done a good job in this particular case with things progressing well and good to see the OP is happy.

Going by your pictures with the hair grown out, your donor looks fine in all honesty.

I wouldn't worry too much to be honest. At a 1.5 grade, most donor area's can look somewhat on the thin side. Think I'd only be concerned if it looks thin/patchy when you grow it out. How does it look when grown out? The donor area will be examined for miniaturisation etc during your in person consultation and if there is an issue, a reputable surgeon will bring it up. With Dr Bisanga you are in good hands. Has a conservative, ethical approach and if he has seen your pictures and said your donor looks suitable, I'd go with that.

As you say, 'best' can be subjective but think the more important question is who is the best for your own particular type/level of hairloss. From the UK, personally I'd only consider Dr Reddy or Dr Ball now. In terms of other options that are close by (short journey on the Eurostar), you then have quality surgeons in the likes of Dr Bisanga, Dr Lupanzula and Dr Feriduni in Belgium. In Spain, it's Dr Couto (long waiting list 3-4 years!), Dr Lorenzo and Dr De Freitas. In Turkey, if you are balding extensively (NW4-5, in some cases 6) and need a larger procedure, i'd say ASMED. For smaller work, especially in and around the hairline, I'd say Dr Keser. Hattingen based in Switzerland are another clinic that go under the radar somewhat and one worth considering if you want to go the FUT route. Some great surgeons in North America to, and in Dr Konior and Hasson&Wong, you have 2 elite surgeons/clinics there.

Are you on hairloss medication? Your crown isn't totally bald but looks like it will get there at some point without medication (finasteride). When Dr Bisanga quoted you 4000 grafts, did he mention how many in the front and how many in the back? Guessing, I'd say something like 3000 in the frontal area and 1000 in the crown. Just be aware that if you are not on medication, the crown (as well the the front/mid area's)will continue to lose any remaining hair and you may be back to square one if you have hair transplanted there now. Personally I think 3000-3500 in the frontal/midscalp area with a conservative, mature age appropriate hairline will give you a good result. In the 2nd picture looks like your temple areas have recessed quite a bit and the midscalp is also thinning. I might be tempted to hold fire on the crown unless you are taking finasteride as I wouldn't be surprised to see that develop into a slick bald spot further down the line. If not on medication, maybe look to address the crown when the hairloss there has stabilised. With regards to the various surgeons mentioned, I hold Dr Bisanga and Dr Ball in higher regard than the Crown Clinic. In the UK, I'd only really consider Dr Reddy and Dr Ball personally.

Agree with this. Looking at the OP's pre-op pics, the crown is obviously balding but not slick bald and I think the remaining hair will continue to go without medication. If you are not using medication, I think you are probably better off letting the rest of the hair in the crown go and then look to address it when it stabilises. You don't really want to be playing 'catch up' in the crown as in my experience hair loss there can quickly accelerate and that balding can turn into a slick bald spot in no time at all. If you were to go ahead addressing the crown now, yes in the short term it may look good but once the rest of that native hair falls out there, you'll be back to square one so probably better to let it somewhat stabilise first.

Don't want to alarm you, but the spaces between the grafts just look plain wrong. I'm struggling to see anywhere near 4100 grafts in that picture. Do you have a picture immediately after post-op? Who was the surgeon?

Work looks very clean and you are healing well. Dr Lupanzula is another who leaves the donor looking in clean, tidy condition after a procedure.

Result is not good and OP has every right to be dissapointed. Looking at the number of grafts involved, I'm trying to work out how many have actually gone in the area that is lowered. Out of the 3070 grafts, I wouldn't be surprised if 500 as a minimum (250 each side) of those were used for the temple points (looks like they were worked on in the pics), leaving 2570 for the top. Now I believe as well as lowering the hairline, you mentioned some grafts were also used to reinforce the area where you original hairline was. Do you know how many were used to reinforce that area? If it was say 500, then you are left with 2070 for the area that was lowered and for me it can be touch and go as to whether that is enough to get the density right in an area which has no hair. In the hands of the right Dr and with thick hair diameter it may well be enough, who knows. If more than 500 were used for the reinforcing of the area in the original hairline, then would be genuinely surprised the clinic would think a decent result could be obtained using below 2070 grafts in lowering the hairline, especially taking into account the rest of your hair has good density. Would be really interesting to know just how many grafts were placed in bringing the hairline down. Not sure what your hair caliber/diameter is but from the pictures although it doesn't look particularly on the thinish side, wouldn't say it's super thick either. How many microns was your hair measured at? I just wonder if the clinic has got the numbers wrong in this one, specifically in the area that has been lowered, especially considering your hair looks relatively good on the rest of your head and one of the critical aims for this procedure should have been to ensure the area worked on matched up in terms of visual density to the area behind the frontal area. Obviously looking from afar, my numbers above may well be all wrong but just an observation. Going forward, as mentioned, your issue shouldn't be too hard to fix but need to find out the reasons for the unsatisfactory outcome.